Page 39 of 115 < 1 2 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#965586 - 23/02/2011 23:29 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
MixedLayer Offline
Cloud Gazer

Registered: 18/02/2011
Posts: 1
Hi All,

I just wanted to get some clarification here...


Originally Posted By: ROM
Berkeley EARTH Surface Temperature

Quote:
A New Assessment of Global Warming
The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study sets out to to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. We are using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies.

Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record.


The caveat here is that there are a number of climate scientists like Pielke Sr and many other prominent climate researchers who are throwing more and more support towards the idea of the far more easily measured "Ocean Heat Content" being a far more reliable indicator of changes in global temperatures than the problem ridden ground station data that Berkeley University is currently working on


To my understanding, ocean heat content (OHC) is not measured, it is a derived variable by knowing the heat capacity, density and temperature of the water column in the ocean - where ever these variables may be measured. So I was wondering, what is the current consensus on the warming of global oceans given this far more reliable indicator of changes in global temperatures as described above?

It seems that one might conclude that the global oceans are indeed warming, and have continued to do so since the mid 1960's ...going by these studies...

Nature letter

Geophysical research letter

thanks for your help in answering this question confused

Top
#965689 - 24/02/2011 10:14 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: MixedLayer]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
For a layman switched on blogger possibly the best site to follow for updates and analysis of SST's and Ocean Heat content and anything to do with Ocean / climate interactions is Bob Tisdale's Climate Observations
Bob's site has a truly immense amount of data, analysis and is graph laden, all extending back for some years.
It is a complex but relatively easy read and will keep any keen ocean student occupied for a long time going through all the relative posts to the aspect of ocean temps and etc that you might like to follow.

If you want to follow the ARGO float outputs in Australia's immediate vicinity then try the CSIRO's Ocean Surface Currents and Temperature >
At Depth / Latest ARGO float positions -- > [ position ] > select float from map

NOAA's Global Ocean Heat Content

The climate science world seems to be slowly swinging towards using Global Ocean Heat Content as a far more reliable indicator of global heat flows into and out of the globe which can be measured far more reliably by satellite than the very unevenly dispersed, subject to vast amounts of error and confined to just 29% of the land surface on the planet Land Surface Temperature record.

To take that even further, good land surface temperature records probably cover less than 20% of this total global land surface and then only in literally spot locations of at the very most, a few square kilometres around each recording thermometer.

That problem and the solution is reinforced by GISS having to use a grid of 1200 kms per side in a lot of the global land surface records to derive what they claim to be the global surface temperature and their analysis is under serious question due to infilling of data over these vast distances and a whole heap of other statistically improbable methods used to derive the so called land surface temperatures.
And you can see the from the comments on what a lot of climate scientists and particularly the statistical branches of science think of the accuracy of using the GISS/ CRU land surface temperature recording methods.
Very good statistical analysis of data and "claimed" results is one of the most important parts of climate science but is also the one which the importance of is disregarded by a lot of AGW scientists so as to get the results they need for their agenda.
And a very large part of the current long running disputes on the interpretation of proxies and numerous other aspects of climate science which are in serious doubt are due to the very poor to bad application of statistical methods used to derive some agenda driven results.

For confirmation of that try going back and reading Steve McIntyres Climate Audit's many past posts on the statistical problems that occur with great regularity in most of the quoted AGW papers


Edited by ROM (24/02/2011 10:23)

Top
#979143 - 26/03/2011 15:27 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 6970
Loc: Adelaide Hills.


Edited by -Cosmic- (naz) (26/03/2011 15:29)

Top
#979184 - 26/03/2011 19:35 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
aerology Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 05/11/2009
Posts: 92

Top
#979271 - 27/03/2011 02:03 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: aerology]
mobihci Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 09/05/2009
Posts: 486
Loc: Brisbane


its a pity argo wasnt around 20 years ago. it would be interesting to see the difference between surface and ocean over a decent amount of time. as it stands, the surface has done just as little as the ocean since argo started in 2003.

Top
#979608 - 28/03/2011 12:24 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: mobihci]
davidg Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/06/2008
Posts: 2204
Loc: Glenbrook/Penrith
Hey guys, came across this blog by NASA scientist Isaac Held.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/02/17/1-introduction/

Pretty smart guy. Whilst he generally agrees with the hypothesis of AGW, he seems far more interested in the actual research of the climate and his opinions appear to be far more moderate than some of his "peers". Havent read much yet but looks pretty good.

Top
#979857 - 29/03/2011 07:09 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: davidg]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
Providing Insight
Into Climate Change

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Top
#979929 - 29/03/2011 10:39 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: davidg]
davidg Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/06/2008
Posts: 2204
Loc: Glenbrook/Penrith
Originally Posted By: davidg
Hey guys, came across this blog by NASA scientist Isaac Held.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2011/02/17/1-introduction/

Pretty smart guy. Whilst he generally agrees with the hypothesis of AGW, he seems far more interested in the actual research of the climate and his opinions appear to be far more moderate than some of his "peers". Havent read much yet but looks pretty good.


From the link above:

Quote:
I call myself an atmospheric or climate dynamicist/theorist/modeler. I am sure that there are philosophers of science who distinguish between the terms “theory” and “model”, but I don’t. I work with a range of theories of different kinds; when these reach a certain level of complexity they are typically referred to as computer models.


Eloquently put!

Top
#980471 - 30/03/2011 16:53 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 6970
Loc: Adelaide Hills.

I have not expressed my views on either of these papers. They are both, however, scientifically relevant.

Top
#981340 - 01/04/2011 19:51 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
That first paper, Cosmic, seems to be a multiple of assertions and arm waving based solely on models with lots of caveats included.
Most unimpressed as there doesn't seem to be much hard science in evidence at all in that paper, just modeling and assertions, but with a name like Susan Solomon as lead author I guess anybody could get something like that into print in a AGW leaning publication.

The second paper is dated 2005 publication and I figure that there has been a lot of work on this water cycle aspect over the last 5.5 years since and some different views are now gaining currency on the global water cycle as well as other influential climate factors.

Roy Spencer's satellite based Global Water Vapor variations show huge variations in atmospheric water vapor levels since the graph started in mid 2002 with a huge peak in early 2010, and then a precipitous fall through the trend line floor from then to now, early 2011.
Overall Spencer indicates the slightest and barely distinguishable trend line upwards and no error bars included which would negate that trend entirely.

Top
#981357 - 01/04/2011 21:50 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
The planes! The planes!
Posted on March 31, 2011 by Anthony Watts
From Dr. Roger Pielke Senior: (with apologies to Tattoo)


Contrails southeast lrg.gif MODIS tracking of contrails generated by air traffic over the southeastern United States on January 29, 2004. Source: NASA Earth Observatory, click the image for details


There is a news article on March 29 2011 from Rueters titled

Aircraft condensation trails criss-crossing the sky may be warming the planet on a normal day more than the carbon dioxide emitted by all planes since the Wright Brothers’ first flight in 1903, a study said on Tuesday.

The text begins with [highlight added]


“Aircraft condensation trails criss-crossing the sky may be warming the planet on a normal day more than the carbon dioxide emitted by all planes since the Wright Brothers’ first flight in 1903, a study said on Tuesday.”

Another excerpt reads

“The study, by experts at the DLR German Aerospace Center, estimated that the net warming effect for the Earth of contrails and related cirrus clouds at any one time was 31 milliwatts per square meter, more than the warming effect of accumulated CO2 from aviation of 28 milliwatts.”

If correct, this is a remarkable finding with respect to contrails as a climate forcing. It also shows that as we study the climate system, we find it is affected by a wider diversity of human climate forcings than concluded by the IPCC. The human effect on the climate system is not dominated by CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/31/the-planes-the-planes/#more-36997


Edited by .ptl (01/04/2011 21:52)

Top
#981365 - 01/04/2011 22:14 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Now down here in Horsham we have some darn good gliders available for competent and trained glider pilots to fly.
And we even have training instructors to get you to a level that will enable you to fly long distances in these gliders.
And we are an environmentally friendly sport with no contrails, no CO2 emissions after the first few moments of getting airborne, no excessive use of scarce energy resources to remain flying for hours, no excessive energy consuming weight being unnecessarily carried around like hosties and an excessive number of pilots,[ Beer bellies excepted! ] just you, your water bottle, your mobile phone and your car keys which you should have damn well left in your car at the aerodrome in case you land 200 kilometres from home and we have to come and get you with that big long glider trailer!

Ad; [ go easy please mods blush ]
"Horsham Flying Club" can provide all this for you so that you are eased in conscience and spirit and that you will sin no more by putting contrails and CO2 into our precious atmosphere.
Click on the above for more info on this non contrail producing, non CO2 spuming and energy saving way of getting from here to where you never intended to land, form of traveling!
wink grin

Top
#981410 - 02/04/2011 08:05 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Contrails form where there is sufficient existing water vapor to condense on the surface of rapidly cooling ultra fine particles of solid carbon or soot emitted by jet engines.

This is why you sometimes observe discontinuous vapor trail generation. The jet is actually mapping the pockets of water vapor for the observer.

One of the characteristics of some 3G biofuels, and initial tests for 4G or algal grown fuels is a distinct lack of soot, so we can expect that whatever the atmospheric impacts of visible contrails are, they will diminish as fleets transition to engines that burn these fuels. This doesn't of course mean the non-visible effects will necessarily change, the atmospheric physics and chemistry involved are enormously complex but I'm just trying to throw some light on a popular misconception about what vapor trails are. They are not trails of vapor from the engines, water being one of the things you really exclude with great care from jet fuel, as it will freeze solid in the tanks, and you will fall out of the sky, while jet grade kerosene remains liquid to a specified quality to below -40 or -44C, and is now recirculated through warmer parts of the jet during cruise to remove the risk of it turning to jelly in external temperarures of as low -75C.

The huge and often dark colored vapor trails produced by airliners at the very start of the jet age were different, in that those engines relied on methanol water injection at maximum take off thrust settings to boost engine output. They emitted huge quantities of soot and water vapor in their own right, but disappeared when a combination of law suits in the US and the advent of the higher by-pass ratio jet engine lead to much cleaner burning engines, a trend which has continued into the current generations of kerosene burning engines for which 'drop in' bio fuel and ultimately algal fuel alternatives are being developed.



Edited by Ben Sandilands (02/04/2011 08:08)

Top
#981761 - 03/04/2011 17:00 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 6970
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: ROM
That first paper, Cosmic, seems to be a multiple of assertions and arm waving based solely on models with lots of caveats included.
Most unimpressed as there doesn't seem to be much hard science in evidence at all in that paper, just modeling and assertions, but with a name like Susan Solomon as lead author I guess anybody could get something like that into print in a AGW leaning publication.

The second paper is dated 2005 publication and I figure that there has been a lot of work on this water cycle aspect over the last 5.5 years since and some different views are now gaining currency on the global water cycle as well as other influential climate factors.

I’ve read most if not all of both papers…I decided not to express my views on them; I refrained from passing judgement.

Top
#981797 - 03/04/2011 19:24 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
Seira Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 27/08/2003
Posts: 6970
Loc: Adelaide Hills.
Originally Posted By: -Cosmic- (naz)
Originally Posted By: ROM
That first paper, Cosmic, seems to be a multiple of assertions and arm waving based solely on models with lots of caveats included.
Most unimpressed as there doesn't seem to be much hard science in evidence at all in that paper, just modeling and assertions, but with a name like Susan Solomon as lead author I guess anybody could get something like that into print in a AGW leaning publication.

The second paper is dated 2005 publication and I figure that there has been a lot of work on this water cycle aspect over the last 5.5 years since and some different views are now gaining currency on the global water cycle as well as other influential climate factors.

I’ve read most if not all of both papers…I decided not to express my views on them; I refrained from passing judgement.

I will acknowledge though that I found the first paper mildly concerning.

Top
#981856 - 03/04/2011 21:12 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Seira]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
This one is a beauty;
From WUWT, Jimbo,, a long time WUWT reader has posted 33 groups, pairs mostly, of peer reviewed papers that claim global warming is the reasons why their research has reached the conclusions listed.
Each of the pairs of papers on each subject directly contradicts the other paper despite global warming being claimed as responsible for the each paper's research conclusions.

The big self parodying “climate change blame” list

From Jimbo.
Quote:
The following has been partly referenced and inspired by Numberwatch. The differences between this list and Numberwatch are:

1) I have tried to select my sources only from peer reviewed letters, papers, abstracts, correspondence etc, or from the IPCC.

2) The list contains only research that appears to arrive at contradictory and opposite findings.

3) Items and links in brackets are just for extra information purposes though some are peer reviewed.

4) I have also added many of my own finds to the list.

* Corrections, clarifications and paired, peer reviewed suggestions appreciated.
* Some abstracts provide a link to the full version.
* I am aware of the caveats and uncertainties stated in some of the documents listed below.

“Causes of uncertainty include insufficient or contradictory evidence as well as human behaviour.”
IPCC

And you and I as taxpayers from every western country are paying very big bikkies indeed for this sort of crappy trash global warming papers and from which we will be unlikely to see any benefit at all to nature, man or beast, now or in the foreseeable future.

Top
#981912 - 04/04/2011 06:56 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
While I don't think anyone can argue with the need to crack down on false data or feeble logic it is another matter to by extension, include all climate research as this implies you are so threatened or offended by what might be found that you want it suppressed. I could be reading you incorrectly on this, but there is a vast body of work being done some of which is often relied upon here to support different positions.

We need this work to be done. We also need it to be done without expectation as to the answers, or criticism prior to the event.

The only legitimate expectation of research in general is that it will contain 'surprises' even 'upsets' some of them unwelcome or unpleasant, and some of them of considerable utility or benefit.

Top
#981939 - 04/04/2011 09:15 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6628
Ben, I have been an avid supporter of science for most of my nearly 73 years on this planet.
The current so called research using climate change as the key to justify anything and everything that these so called scientists like to throw up really denigrates and is on the way to destroying the enormous respect that has been the very lucky lot of all science since WW2.
Science and scientists on both sides of the conflict in WW2 were seen to have advanced technology, unfortunately in most cases, technology of the wrong kind but still enormous advances, medicine ; ie Penicillin and trauma treatment, communications, safety as in radar and etc.
So western science came out of that war with a new and huge political and public respect and the scientists of every stripe, being human took maximum advantage of that respecrt to further their research and aims.
Witness the various enormously costly particle colliders built since WW2, the equally costly and complex telescopes, the very costly satellite programs of now some dozen countries

But that public respect has now in the process of being destroyed by the sheer greed and growing evidence of poor research and increasing number of cases of fraudulent research in many fields and the falling standards of dedication and commitment to by many so called scientists towards their chosen research field.

As I get older I am increasingly seeing the slow decline of respect by the public for science and scientific research and an ever increasing number of hard questions being raised about the direction and the veracity of so much research. For too long scientists have been able to manipulate public respect for science, to place science and by implication themselves on a very high pedestal.
Well we are all now starting to realise thanks primarily to machinations of the AGW climate scientists through the revelations of Climate Gate plus the refusal to release data, the on going deliberate alterations to basic climate data as Bill Illis has just pointed out with his detailed way that the global temperature data has been changed to achieve a pre ordained result over the last 20 years and so many other happenings in particularly climate science that scientists are just ordinary human beings who are just as vulnerable to being anywhere from incompetent to corrupted to absolutely brilliant researchers in their particular field.
They are not supermen or any more intelligent than anybody else in the community and are just ordinary people who have chosen a particular way of earning a living as we all have to do .

All of which makes all of us who have trusted science and scientists for so long, who have placed science on a high pedestal for more than 50 year since WW2 realise mostly in the last few years thanks to the machinations and fraudulent activities of climate science with it's apparent one world dictatorship agenda, that scientists are just as avaricious, just as greedy, just as corrupt, just as incompetent as any other section of the public you might like to point out.

And those conflicting papers are prime examples of "research" [ ? ] being done not to advance science but to justify the money lavished onto the authors of those papers by politcals and bureaucrats that are ignorant about any science and still haven't got the message that their policies of lavish funding to any so called scientists who are incapable of generating any research that has veracity and is solidly based but who has convinced them, the politicals, the importance of his / her agenda is doing modern science enormous harm in the eyes of the public who will as time passes have a considerable influence on the way science is funded into the future.
Scientists after all are totally reliant on the public tax payer for nearly all of their funding these days and if they get their public off side, something that climate science and the global warmers are well on the way to achieving, then all of science is in for a very ride in the not so distant future.

Now it is not all the fault of scientists themselves as my many scientist friends in Agricultural research have often told me over the last decade that if they do not include something about how their research is affected by Global Warming then they did not and do not get any funding for any of their research.

That is how utterly corrupting to science the extremist Warmistas in the tax payer financed, science funding bureaucracies have become and are in the process of utterly corrupting to any genuine research into many fields by imposing their Climate change demands as a part of any research funding.
Even the most dedicated scientists have to toe this bureaucratic controlled funding line and produce the results mostly preordained by the extremists in these bureaucracies if they want to continue to get funding for their research projects.

And a few of my credentials for making these comments;
1 /Trustee for 28 years for the land base of local Agricultural research organisation here in Horsham, one of the largest in Australia with some 180 Ag scientists plus technicians in residence.
2 / Member of the 1/2 dozen strong research committee which made the recommendations for new research projects for the grower financed and run Birchip Cropping Group, the largest such organisation in Australia.
3 / The only farmer invited to the world's first conference on Synthetic Wheats.
4 / A regular invitee and attender to internal Ag science workshops at our Grains research establishment.
5 / One of my brothers who I was in partnership with did the initial work in setting up the American medic pasture breeding program using Australian technology from Waite in Adelaide and was on a first name basis and had a few dinners with the USDA head of al pasture research in America.
6 / Set up our own grain research plots for some 25 years, the results from which were often incorporated into the Vic Dept of Ag's research results.

And much more in the fields of science including attending a couple of small workshops for some very senior Australian climate scientists held in Birchip a few years ago.











Edited by ROM (04/04/2011 09:23)

Top
#981941 - 04/04/2011 09:20 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Spatch Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/01/2011
Posts: 360
Originally Posted By: ROM
This one is a beauty;
From WUWT, Jimbo,, a long time WUWT reader has posted 33 groups, pairs mostly, of peer reviewed papers that claim global warming is the reasons why their research has reached the conclusions listed.
Each of the pairs of papers on each subject directly contradicts the other paper despite global warming being claimed as responsible for the each paper's research conclusions.

The big self parodying “climate change blame” list

From Jimbo.
Quote:
The following has been partly referenced and inspired by Numberwatch. The differences between this list and Numberwatch are:

1) I have tried to select my sources only from peer reviewed letters, papers, abstracts, correspondence etc, or from the IPCC.

2) The list contains only research that appears to arrive at contradictory and opposite findings.

3) Items and links in brackets are just for extra information purposes though some are peer reviewed.

4) I have also added many of my own finds to the list.

* Corrections, clarifications and paired, peer reviewed suggestions appreciated.
* Some abstracts provide a link to the full version.
* I am aware of the caveats and uncertainties stated in some of the documents listed below.

“Causes of uncertainty include insufficient or contradictory evidence as well as human behaviour.”
IPCC

And you and I as taxpayers from every western country are paying very big bikkies indeed for this sort of crappy trash global warming papers and from which we will be unlikely to see any benefit at all to nature, man or beast, now or in the foreseeable future.


As I suspected it's the usual poorly researched and misleading article that we have come to expect from WUWT.

If you drill down into any of the papers you get the real story, and it's not as cut and dried as the author claims.

Let's take a look at a random selection from the list.

UK may get more droughts

UK may get more rain

Here's the two papers:

An extreme value analysis of UK drought and projections of change in the future.

Multi-model ensemble estimates of climate change impacts on UK seasonal precipitation extremes.

We have two papers. One is studying impacts from drought. The other impacts from seasonal precipitation.

There is no issue here. Both studies are relevant and mutually inclusive as in one region could experience more droughts as another experiences higher seasonal precipitation. Summers may become hotter and drier whilst winters may have more precipitation.

Read the papers to get the real story.

The article on WUWT simply relies on the reader not drilling down into the papers. Because when you do the whole story collapses.








Top
#981948 - 04/04/2011 09:50 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Spatch]
explorer Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 29/01/2011
Posts: 522
Loc: Coolum Beach, Qld
WA vs the east coast ... heat waves vs floods ... if I can see it ...

Top
Page 39 of 115 < 1 2 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
4 registered (ozthunder, Steve777, Kino, EddyG), 251 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
colorado, Effrem, whitsunday
Forum Stats
29343 Members
32 Forums
23662 Topics
1458842 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image